Ok, sigh yourself:
As I understand, it is longstanding precedent (since 2009 Obama admin, iirc) that illegals CAN be arrested and processed and moved around without the sorts of requirements needed for legal citizens.
First, you're assuming that I either didn't know that "removal" as opposed to deportation, ordered by immigration officers instead of judges wasn't a thing, or that I was always ok with it when it happened under previous presidents. Neither is true. I'm the first to criticize Obama when he did something shitty (which started with why I almost didn't vote for him in 2008--as a senator, he voted to give AT&T immunity for giving the NSA metadata without a warrant. Had McCain not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote, but McCain had gone through several cancer scares by that point, and I was afraid of ending up with President Palin).
Second, even though the Obama adminstration (and Bush, it was also going on with the Bush administration) removed people without judge orders, they typically did it at the border. They, in my opinion, did so illegally in some cases (some of the people turned away from the border already had been granted asylum by a judge), but the for the most part, the potential for a mistake was minimal. Said previous administrations also removed people under the order of immigration officers if they were within 100 miles from our borders (because in another ridiculous US longstanding practice, anything within 100 miles of the border is considered to be on the border...so you can get searched without a warrant, for instance, as if you just landed at an airport if you're within 100 miles of a border). It is terrible, I never liked it, I criticized it back then.
So, what's changed with Trump administration that makes it that much worse? First, the removals within the 100 mile ring that happened before were all against people who were *convicted* of a crime by a court. So they got some form of due process, even if it's not satisfactory. The Trump administration has included people that were *suspected* of being gang members, without a conviction, often with the most ridiculous excuses. Take Abrego Garcia, who got into a database for being a potential gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat at a Home Depot. And got subsequently accused of human trafficking because once he was driving a car with 9 people in it. And speaking of Abrego Garcia, no previous administration performed removals that sent said people to *prison* outside the country. The Trump administration also abandoned the 100 mile ring thing, and they can take people from anywhere.
Or take Mahmoud Khalil, who got his green card revoked and was arrested because he was taking place in a peaceful protest. He wasn't even *accused* of a crime, the administration is literally saying that his first amendment rights are dangerous because he's protesting against their position on Isreal, and that's the reason he should be deported.
Here's the thing: if you don't get to go before a court, how do I know you're here illegally? What's to stop them from sending you there, and never giving you a chance to show you're a US citizen? Because, guess what? Due Process is how you PROVE they're here illegally, or that you did anything wrong. And you can't deny the Trump administration escalated things from "this shouldn't be allowed by the courts" to "oh shit, this is 1933 Germany crap." Because...again, you argued that the removals were happening, but completely ignored my point that the removal was to OUT OF THE COUNTRY PRISONS WITH KNOWN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.
denying free speech re the DoD: (shrug) it's certainly a break from practice. Then again, news agencies used to also go fetch the news, not rely on it being spoon fed to them by govt officials.
I'm not saying government officials should be required to volunteer anything to reporters. Beyond what is required by freedom of information act. Information that has reason to be restricted can remain restricted, and although I prefer the government to be as transparent as possible, if the pentagon had said, "we're not dealing with the press anymore," I would find that disturbing, and a bad choice by the administration, but I wouldn't call it part of a fascist regime. What crosses the line is that they're saying, "after we give you the information, you have to let us see what you write, and give us veto power over what you publish." And selectively giving information only to outlets that sign that agreement.
Are you seriously going to argue that's not a propaganda office?
Would it have been better if Fox/Newsmax *had* agreed?
No, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I pointed it out because Fox and Newsmax are organizations that typically side with the current administration, but even they agree that's a step too far. It's not partisan, it's objectively worrisome.
most of his claims are clearly in the tenor of a joke or trolling the hypersensitive left.
As much as I don't like his completely unprofessional and disrespectful to the office attitude, I recognize his trolling. That's not what I was talking about. I'm referring to his claims of having the power to do whatever his wants as *justifications to actual actions he has taken*. For instance, tariffs. The law says only congress has the right to enact those. There's also a law that says he can enact those in an emergency. So he uses the justification of a fentanyl epidemic for tariffs that he *also clearly says are not due to address the fentanyl epidemic, but as part of negotiation tactics*.
He's being open about violating the law with flimsy excuses. Again, how are you justifying this?